[ig/smartcities] Web-based Digital Twins for Smart Cities Interest Group chartering

[ashimura]

New charter proposal, reviewers please take note.

Charter Review

Draft Charter: Web-based Digital Twins for Smart Cities Interest Group

What kind of charter is this? Check the relevant box / remove irrelevant branches.

• New
  • [ ] New WG
  • [x] New IG
  • If this is a new WG or IG charter request, link to [Advance Notice](), and any issue discussion: TBD

---

Horizontal Reviews: apply the Github label "Horizontal review requested" to request reviews for accessibility (a11y), internationalization (i18n), privacy, and security. Also add a "card" for this issue to the Strategy Funnel.

Communities suggested for outreach:

• Web of Things Working Group, Web of Things Interest Group, Web of Things Community Group, Web of Things Japanese Community Group
• Decentralized Identifiers Working Group, Verifiable Credentials Working Group, Credentials Community Group
• Web and Networks IG

Known or potential areas of concern:

Where would charter proponents like to see issues raised? (this strategy funnel issue, a different github repo, email, ...)

• GitHub repo for the discussion

Anything else we should think about as we review?

[plehegar]

Advance notice: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2023JulSep/0032.html

[ashimura]

Terribly sorry it took very long to update the draft Charter.

I've updated the draft Charter based on your comment, and also some more comments I got offline, e.g., during the Strategy call.

The summary of updates is:

• Section "1.6 Digital Twins" as the Key Concept
  • added basic definition for "Digital Twins" at section based on the definition by ITU-T SG20 and ISO/IEC JTC1/WG11
  • added a figure about "Digital Twin Framework" right below the definition
  • moved the description about "a possible data connection mechanism for Web-based Digital Twins" from the Scope section to section 1.6
• Section "2. Scope"
  • added "Disaster countermeasure" to the list of possible topics
• Section "5.1 W3C Groups"
  • removed the categories of "Primary" and "Secondary"
  • removed Automotive WG, and added Automotive Ontology CG and Automotive Privacy Principles CG
• Section "5.2 External Organizations"
  • added brief description to the items that said "tbd"
  • added list of example countries and cities

Please see also the detailed diff from the previous version.

I responded to https://github.com/w3c/smartcities-workshop/issues/17 as well.

[svgeesus]

Overall looks good!

Small typo: s/Smart Citeis /Smart Cities

[ashimura]

Thanks a lot, @svgeesus ! I've just fixed the typo.

fixed some more typos based on ispell results too :)

[ashimura]

FYI, regarding https://github.com/w3c/smartcities-workshop/issues/17 , the commenter agreed the description within the updated draft Charter was sufficient and the issue has been closed.

[ruoxiran]

APA would like to be listed in liaison groups. The reason that we want to be added, as we wish to add use cases.

[ashimura]

@ruoxiran , thanks a lot for your kind offer!

I've added APA WG to the W3C Groups section :)

[plehegar]

No specific comments from PING.

We're glad to see: [[ The topics that the Interest Group will address include but are not limited to: [...]

• Privacy, to preserve the rights of citizens and other stakeholders; ]]

[ashimura]

Thanks a lot, @plehegar !

[himorin]

diff from charter template

• cepc link has old title as Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct in section 6
• link to github repository in section 7 is not updated from template as `[link to GitHub repo]'
• section 8 contains director as at the discretion of the Chairs or the Director.
• section 1.3 paragraph 3 and 4 has html error, also paragraph 4 IPA and OPC might need country name?

[matatk]

APA WG is very happy with this - we were going to ask that we be included as to the Coordination section, specifically to provide use cases (as well as accessibility horizontal review), and I note that you just added this in the latest set of updates to the proposed charter; thanks @ashimura.

[ashimura]

Thank YOU, @matatk !

[ashimura]

Thanks a lot for your comments, @himorin !

I've updated the draft Charter as follows.

• cepc link has old title as Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct in section 6

fixed as "Code of Conduct".

• link to github repository in section 7 is not updated from template as `[link to GitHub repo]'

This is a proposal for a completely new IG and there is no repository of an existing CG, etc., so I tentatively added the URL of the Smart Cities Workshop repository, which currently includes the draft Charter of the proposed IG, with a note of "LINK To be updated".

• section 8 contains director as at the discretion of the Chairs or the Director.

fixed it as "at the discretion of the Chairs".

• section 1.3 paragraph 3 and 4 has html error, also paragraph 4 IPA and OPC might need country name?

added missing "</p>" and "</dl>".

Regarding "IPA" and "OPC", I've added their official names in addition to the acronyms.

[himorin]

no comment or request from i18n

[ashimura]

@simoneonofri , is there any comment from the Security viewpoint?

[simoneonofri]

Hi @ashimura, I am working on it! :)

[ashimura]

Thanks a lot, @simoneonofri !

[simoneonofri]

Hi @ashimura,

In relation to the Charter, for the Security aspect, I would add as a Success Criteria to document a Threat Model for Smart Cities (also modeled after the WoT one), which also includes the various Supply Chain related threats that are typical of IoT devices.

[ashimura]

Thanks a lot for your suggestion, @simoneonofri !

As we chatted on IRC:

• The group will survey all the existing threat models defined by the other SDOs, Government, etc., first.
• The group will also see if those existing resources are enough.
• Then if (and only if) there is something important which is missing, the group should work on additional threat model based on concrete use cases.

What do you think?

[simoneonofri]

hi @ashimura thank you. Make sense to me, it is important to document the procedure anche the findings referencing them and which one are considered

[himorin]

• remove (or turn into normative) the last paragraph (marked as todo) in Coordination section
• update year in the last footer - copyright

[ashimura]

Thanks a lot for your comments, @himorin !

I've remove the "TODO" Note about APA WG, because the APA WG has been already added based on the accessibility review result.

Also updated the copyright year to "2024".

[plehegar]

AC Review